EV ownership remains concentrated in Fairfield County.

The county is home to 41% of all EVs registered in the state.

EV Ownership by City

It follows then that the cities with the highest EV ownership are mostly in southwestern CT. Greenwich, Stamford, and Westport are the top three. The following chart is an excerpt displaying the highest-ranking cities.

EV Ownership by City, Per Capita

When the data are normalized for population, the ranking changes with Westport being number one, followed by Weston and Woodbridge.

Map of EV Ownership by City

This is what it looks like pictorially. The bubbles represent cities and the size of the bubble adjusts based on the number of EVs registered in each city.

BEV Registrations Move Ahead; PHEV Growth Soft

In response to our standing Freedom of Information Act Request, the CT Department of Motor Vehicles has provided the EV Club with an updated file of EV registrations as of Jan 1, 2020.

The DMV publishes topline registration data on its website, but this is the only place where detail about these registration data is available publicly and for no charge.

The data from the DMV include make, model, model year, and fuel type. Keep in mind that each data point is a snapshot of registered vehicles at the time the file was generated. This isn’t vehicle sales. It includes all EVs, whether acquired new or used, whether purchased or leased.

Battery Electric Vehicles (BEV) Responsible for Increases

There were striking differences this year by fuel type, something not seen in the past. BEV registrations rose 47%, while plug-in hybrids (PHEV) registrations increased only 8%. This is in stark contrast to the pattern one year ago when PHEVs had more momentum. (There are also small numbers of battery electric motorcycles (BEMC) and Fuel cell (FCEV) vehicles). BEVs now make up a majority of BEVs.

This is the overall trend over the four years of data points we have. The relatively strong BEV number, when blended with the other fuel types resolves to a 26% increase, lower than one year ago. According to the DMV, there were 4120 new EV registrations, which means there was turnover in the fleet of 1732 vehicles.

The landscape for EVs was less forgiving in 2019. Nationally, 2019 saw a year over year decrease in new vehicle EV sales for the first time. Several states have imposed EV fees in the hundreds of dollars in the guise of a “road-use tax.” In CT, Tesla is still prohibited from opening stores, though they have recently obtained a leasing license for their one service center. The CT EV purchase incentive program, CHEAPR, saw cuts made to both the level of incentive and the MSRP cap that determines vehicle eligibility. These changes brought about a 71% decline in rebates. This correlated with weaker growth in the second half of the year relative to the first half (and ran counter to national sales trends). Also, Tesla and General Motors were in the phase-out period for the Federal tax credits. The tax credit for Tesla ended entirely as of December 31. As of March 31, 2020, it will end for GM.

Rate of increase slowed in the second half

Trend by Make

The only EV make to have a significant impact on the numbers was Tesla. The chart below shows the 4-year trend of registrations by make. It is truncated to make it more readable. As you can see, a small number of makes are responsible for the bulk of the registrations.

This is a chart of the current registration profile.

This is a chart that depicts the contribution to the change for the last year by each make. Tesla accounts for 65% of the increase in registrations. This was followed by Hyundai with 9% and Toyota with 6%.

Trend by Model

If there is a single story about 2019, it is the Tesla Model 3. It accounted for 84% of the Tesla increase. Even though it has only been in the market for about two years, it has become the most widely registered EV in the state, 38% higher than the Prius, which is the second-highest. For our purposes, we combined the Prius Prime with the older plug-in Prius.

Model 3 registrations increased 127% this year vs. last. The Model X had a 33% increase on a lower base. Among the other leading EVs, the Prius, Model S, Honda Clarity, Nissan Leaf, and Chevy Bolt all had more modest increases. The Honda Clarity had a big jump a year ago, but we have read reports that Honda has pulled it back from most states, and this is reflected

2019 was the year that General Motors discontinued the Volt, which at one time, had been the most widely registered vehicle. Volt registrations declined 1% as the car now begins its gradual fade from view. This decline in the Volt, along with the softer performances of the Prius and Clarity, and no new PHEVs making much of a splash are what is behind the low PHEV increase.

The chart displayed below is an excerpt of the most widely registered models for display purposes.

Changes to CHEAPR Cause Rebates to Plummet and Bring Down Overall Results for CT

In addition to the rebate data, we now have data for EV sales nationally and EV registrations in CT for the full year 2019 to provide greater context to what appears to be some seriously misguided decision-making going on in CHEAPR-land.

As noted in earlier posts, the changes made to reduce the size of the rebates, and arguably, more importantly, lower the price cap for eligibility, have caused rebates to plummet 71% in units and 87% in dollar volume. At the current run-rate, the program will only expend about $520,000 of its $3-million allotment.

Tesla Model 3 rebates fell 92% and accounted for 70% of the overall decline. Chevy Bolt rebates fell 85% and Nissan Leaf rebates dropped 75%. Both the Bolt and Leaf declines came from much lower starting points than the Model 3.

We now have CT EV registration data for 2019, and we have two points in time, July 1, 2019, and Jan 1, 2020, enabling the separate evaluation of the first vs second half of the year. As seen in the chart below, from Jan 1, 2019, to July 1, 2019, EV registrations rose 16.2%. From July 1, 2019, to Jan 1, 2020, they rose 8.2%. The changes to CHEAPR took effect on October 15 and correlate with the declining rate of increase.

This is counterpointed by the fact that nationally, sales of EVs were 22% higher in the second half of the year.

CT and the rest of the country are headed in different directions.

EV Growth Slowed in 2019

We like to cheerlead as much as the next person, but the slow 2019 growth in the EV fleet in CT is not something over which to turn cartwheels.

The Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) has just released its topline Jan. 1 EV registration stats. There are 11,677 EVs registered in CT. (The definition of EV includes battery electric vehicles (BEV), plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEV), fuel-cell electric vehicles (FCEV), and electric motorcycles (BEMC)).

The 11,677 represents growth of 26% over the course of 2019, well below the 78% growth rate in 2018. This mirrors national data, where sales of new EVs (as opposed to our number, which is registrations) suffered the first year-over-year decline since the introduction of the modern EV 10 years ago.

There were 4120 newly registered EVs. Keep in mind that these could be purchased or leased, new or used. However, there was a turnover of 1732 vehicles, leaving us with 2388 net new registrations.

Tesla Provided the Only Serious Growth

The only somewhat bright spot was Tesla, which accounted for 65% of the growth, most of it due to the Model 3.

Mixed Picture on Policy

From a policy perspective, there is a decidedly mixed picture in CT. While many officials talk supportively about EVs, there are still no direct sales permitted (which going forward will affect new EV brands, not just Tesla), and DEEP cut the CHEAPR incentives in October. The latter is likely a contributing factor as to why the growth rate in the second half of the year was 50% lower than the first half.

This blog receives detailed data from the DMV regarding each EV in the state, and a more thoroughgoing analysis will be published once we process those data.

Changes to CHEAPR = large decline in rebates

Club-member, Barry Kresch, penned an Op-Ed that was published in the Hartford Business Journal that discusses the early data regarding the impact of the way DEEP changed the parameters of the CT CHEAPR EV incentive program, and why rebates declined 71%. (This blog has also posted a couple of earlier entries about it here and here.) The incentive was lowered to a maximum of $1500 for a BEV and $500 for a PHEV, and eligibility restricted only to vehicles with an MSRP of no more than $42,000. The lower MSRP cap caused rebates for the Tesla Model 3 to practically disappear, but the effect goes deeper (pun intended).

The word count is constrained for these Op-Eds and the format does not permit graphical exhibits, so this post will be used to expand on a few points. First, these are the graphics from the CHEAPR stats page reflecting the pre and post periods relative to the date of the incentive changes (the incentive change was 10/15). The date range appears in the upper right portion of the image.

While most of the decline was Model 3 related, other vehicles were also affected. We note the steep falloff in the Chevy Bolt. The premium version of the 2020 Bolt begins at $41,985. Bolt rebates declined from 27 to 4. The BMW i3 no longer appears, and it had 2 rebates in the “pre” period. The Nissan Leaf declined from 16 to 4, and it is possible to exceed $42,000 with a Leaf Plus.

If the lowering of the price cap was intended to avoid subsidizing more affluent buyers, this is belied by the fact that the cap on fuel cell vehicles was raised to $60,000.

Massachusetts Incentive Program

As a point of comparison, the Massachusetts incentive program (back online after a brief hiatus) has incentives that are more generous than CHEAPR before the changes. The max incentive for a BEV is 67% higher at $2500. The PHEV rebate is triple CT at $1500 but the vehicle must have an electric range minimum of 25 miles to be eligible, which we think is a sensible requirement. Importantly, there is a price cap and it is $50,000, the same as CT before October 15th.

Current Incentive Structure Penalizes BEVs

We would like to underscore an important point. Batteries are the most expensive part of an EV and the lowering of the price cap, based on the above data, clearly tilts the incentives toward PHEVs, which have increased from 15% to 64% of the rebates. This works against maximizing the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

Do Incentives Work?

We have been asked this question. Perhaps what is still the best (and most extreme) example occurred in Georgia. At one time, GA had the fourth-highest number of EVs on the road of any state in the country, circa 2015. And it was due to one of the most generous incentives of any state: a $5000 state tax credit for the purchase or lease of a new EV. Not only was the incentive repealed in its entirety, but a $200 road-use tax was imposed on EVs. The result? Between June and August of 2015, EV sales plunged 89%. The road-use tax exceeds the amount of money paid in gas taxes by a typical ICE driver. And, of course, there are too few EV drivers to compensate for the decreasing ability of gas taxes to fund needed road improvements. It was clearly punitive toward EVs. It worked, but it also underscores the value of incentives. (Source: WSB-TV) The EV road use fee is reported to be the brainchild of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the organization of conservative state legislators that writes draft legislation and often supports fossil-fuel interests. See this article in Consumer Reports.

Budget

With respect to DEEP managing its budget, there is one new item on the horizon, namely an incentive for used EVs. This was authorized by the legislature in the same bill that provided the new funding stream for CHEAPR. There has been no announcement from DEEP regarding when this may be implemented, how much the incentives would be, or whether there is any means-testing involved. This could conceivably be what caused DEEP to be concerned about their budget. Given that they were on track to be within their allotment, we think a data-gathering phase before implementing changes would have made for better-informed decisions.

Rebates Are Down 81% Based on Early Data

CHEAPR is the Connecticut EV purchase incentive program, administered by the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP). As of October 15, DEEP lowered the incentive levels for all battery electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid vehicles (but not fuel-cell vehicles), as well as lowered the price cap that determines vehicle eligibility. We described these changes in detail here.

As reported in the YaleDailyNews.com, “DEEP representatives told the News that the incentive decreases were necessary to keep the program running.” In other words, they are worried about running out of funds. In legislation passed earlier this year, CHEAPR was funded to the level of $3 million per year through 2025.

Our concern has been that the reductions are too large and that the lower price cap would exclude, in particular, the number one selling EV (by a mile), the Tesla Model 3. The early data seem to bear this out.

DEEP publishes data with a bit of a lag, and as of this writing on Dec. 8, there was a Dec. 2 update published with data through October 31. Also, there isn’t individual day granularity; there are certain interval boundaries that we have to work with. Finally, we don’t know if purchases made before the change, but where the vehicles were delivered afterward, are grandfathered in. All that said, the pattern that emerges is so clear it is like a punch in the nose.

We were able to isolate two 13-day periods, just before and just after the change, something of a “light switch” test. These periods are 9/24 – 10/6 and 10/19 – 10/31.

The number of vehicles for which rebates were issued declined by 81% (from 119 to 23). The dollar amount of the rebates is down 90%. The number of Model 3 rebates declined from 58 to 5. If a straight-line run rate is calculated from the post-change 13-day period, the program would disburse slightly over $600,000, well below the $3 million allotted cap.

Interestingly, if we look at the past 12 months of disbursements before the change (as close as we can get, 10/11/18 to 10/6/19), the amount disbursed was $2,867,500. Are they solving a problem that doesn’t exist?

It is possible that their internal projections that led to the reductions are based on sales forecasts that aren’t supported by current trends. In the legislation that authorized the funding, there is a provision to establish rebates for used vehicles, which has not been done to date. From our perspective, this is the tail wagging the dog. Let’s make the program work. If it runs over budget, we would rather deal with a problem of success. If these changes hold, it will have undermined the intent of the legislation passed in the spring.

The data from DEEP

Dates are noted in the upper right corner.

We expect to publish a subsequent update as more data become available.

Sierra Club releases update of REV Up EV Shopper Study

In 2016, the Sierra Club conducted a study where shoppers went to auto dealers to “shop” for an EV (though in some cases, it was people in the market actually shopping). The results were dispiriting with many dealers not offering EVS, not charging the cars for test driving, having few on the lot and not prominently displaying them.

The prior study was done only in the 10 states following the California fuel economy rules (CARB states). This new study is national, though it breaks out a number of the results by the CARB states versus the rest of the country. While there are some differences in the data points between the studies, the results that aren’t much more encouraging, starting with the 74% headline number (which means that there were no EVs present on the lots of 74% of dealers visited). The picture is slightly better in the CARB states.

Aside from dealer experience, the study makes an effort to provide a broader context, and cites, for example, data on media expenditures by the auto companies on behalf of EVs, which are extremely minimal.

To the extent there was positive information here, there are some dealers that are genuinely making an effort. But it is very ad hoc and dealer dependent. There is no apparent systematic or effective effort on the part of the OEMs to encourage or demand that the dealers make a serious EV sales effort.

The EV Club of CT was recruited by the Sierra Club to send shoppers to dealers and we were happy to oblige.

It should be noted that this isn’t a secret shopper format. The Sierra Club did not direct participating shoppers not to disclose what they were doing.

The full summary can be found here.

The Potential Impact of the Lower CHEAPR Price Cap

Looking at the implication of the changes made to the CHEAPR rebate criteria on October 15, the lower price cap seems directly targeted at excluding the Model 3. The state (and everyone concerned about emissions) seeks to accelerate EV sales, and the Model 3 has higher sales volume than all of the other EV models combined (including BEV and PHEV), according to sales data published by Inside EVs. (Other vehicles will be affected by this, mainly from BMW and Volvo, but there were few rebates for these vehicles.)

The lower trim levels of the Model 3 have been within the previous $50,000 price cap. While it is possible to buy a Model 3 for under $42,000, you are pretty much limited to the base standard range and rear-wheel drive with no options.

Since Tesla began ramping production in the latter part of 2018, the Model 3 accounts for 46% of rebates as reported on the CHEAPR stats page.

If we restrict the range to only 2019 (almost – the range begins on 12/24/18), the numbers are more dramatic with the Model 3 accounting for 54% of rebates, six times the next highest-ranking model, the Toyota Prius Prime.

As can be seen from the filter settings on the above charts, CHEAPR stats are posted through 9/30 as of this writing. From what we have observed, the posting of the stats lags by 3-4 weeks. We don’t know if there is any lead/lag in the implementation (i.e. orders placed before 10/15 with the vehicle delivered afterward). In approximately 8 weeks, depending on the timing of future data loads, we will examine what impact the changes have had, and, over time, we’ll see if it slows overall EV adoption in CT.

EVs and Utility Service Area

We received a file of zip codes served by each utility in CT, which we added into our EV Dashboard model. This map displays on the zip code level, which utility and how many EVs are served. There appear to be some zip codes that are served by multiple utilities, and in those cases, the number of EVS for the zip code would be counted for each utility. We are unable to parse the data to a sub-zip code level. The dots turn into pie charts when multiple utilities share a zip. Also, these are old utility names. So, for example, we have UI and CL&P but no Eversource.

Chart: Barry Kresch

Interactive EV Dashboard – July 2019 Update

The Department of Motor Vehicles has released its semi-annual update of EV ownership in the State of Connecticut. The update is dated July 1. The DMV only publishes the total on its website. We have obtained a detailed file to analyze the profile of EV ownership in CT. This is a file of all light-vehicle EV registrations. It is not new vehicle sales. It includes both purchased and leased vehicles, whether acquired new or used. It reflects newly acquired vehicles, less any turnover. There were 2136 EVs registered in the first half of 2019, but with a turnover of 628 vehicles, the net increase is 1508.

There is no PII. We received make, model, model year, fuel type, and zip code. We added in census data for population by city and median household income by city. The zip code reflects where the vehicle is registered, which could, in some cases, be different than where it is garaged.

This blog post summarizes some of the highlights and uses screenshots, which are not interactive. This link will take you to the browser version of the dashboard, which has the interactivity. Note: pagination is at the bottom of each page. The dashboard also lives on PBI.com, which we can link you to upon request.

Feel free to contact the club with any questions!

Growth

There are now 10,797 EVs registered in CT, an increase of 16% from Jan 2019. This is not a great number. It paces below the CAGR of about 40% that is necessary (based on the Jan. 1 number) to meet the goals outlined in the ZEV Multistate Action Plan. (Granted, this slower growth is occurring against a backdrop of slowing automobile sales generally.)

Fuel Type

53% of EVs are of the Plug-in Hybrid (PHEV) variety. Battery Electric Vehicles (BEV) are growing at a faster rate, mainly due to Tesla. However, the great majority of EV offerings from most other manufacturers are PHEVs, which is driving this. We expect the balance will change in a few years. BEMC refers to Battery Electric Motorcycles, and FCEV refers to Fuel Cell EVs.

Make

The story this year, much like last year, was that most of the growth was driven by Tesla. This is despite whatever sales friction exists due to CT still being among the handful of states that do not allow Tesla to open their own stores, and, of course, Tesla being in the phase-out of the Federal Tax Credit. Hyundai had a modest pop. All of the other manufacturers were either treading water or had lost ground. Honda, which had a boost last year with the PHEV Clarity, has flattened. There is a report in Inside EVs that Honda has pulled back on distribution and is now selling it only in California. The two makes that lost the most ground were Chevrolet and Ford. The chart excerpt below shows the trend of registered EVs by make for the four data points we have going back to 2017. The chart is an excerpt and includes those with the highest numbers as of July 2019.

Tesla now accounts for 34% of EVs registered in the state. As recently as 2018, the numbers for Tesla, Chevrolet, and Toyota were close, but that is no longer the case.

This waterfall chart looks at the contribution to incremental growth between January and July by make. Tesla was responsible for 52% of net EV growth. This was an increase of 780 units out of the net growth of 1508. Hyundai accounted for 32%. All other makes ranged from slightly below 4% to -4%.

Model

The Tesla Model 3 is now the most widely registered Model, less than 2 years after it became available. And, as one can see from the jump in the size of the bar, it is THE story in the EV world for the past 12 months. It is a great early success story, has overwhelmed every other model, and has arguably been something of a double-edged sword for Tesla as the growth of the Models S and X has slowed (more so the S).

The Prius Plug-in is second. (Note: The Prius numbers combine the gen 1 Plug-in Prius with the newer, and better selling, Prius Prime.) In the third position is the Model S, followed by the Chevy Volt. With the discontinuance of the Volt in March 2019, the sales of this model are drastically reduced as GM clears out remaining inventory. On this chart, the number of Volts shows a decline since January, meaning that turnover is greater than newly acquired vehicles being registered. This chart is also an excerpt of the most widely registered models as there are too many to display here.

EVs by City/County

The cities with the highest number of EVs are Stamford (524), Greenwich (489), Westport (431), Fairfield (316), and Norwalk (296). The chart below is an excerpt of the cities with the most EVs.

Fairfield County, in general, is where the largest concentration of EVs can be found, accounting for 40% of EVs in the state.

Per-Capita

On a per-capita basis, Westport is the leading city, followed by Weston, New Canaan, Woodbridge, and Wilton. The chart below is also an excerpt due to space limitations.

In the chart below, the size of the bubble reflects the count of EVs and the coloration is based on per-capita. The darkest blue-green has the highest per-capita and the deepest red is the lowest.

EVs by Zip Code

The final map displays EVs by zip code. Yes, the chart is dense where the populatioin is dense, and it reinforces what we already know from the cities, but gives added granularity. Notice how adjacent zip codes in Fairfield County span the highest to lowest levels of EV representation.